While much feedback research in L1 and L2 writing has been conducted in pre-university and university contexts, little attention has been paid to supervisors’ comments at the graduate level. Specifically, the nature and role of supervisors’ commentary on the writing of graduate-level academic genre is under-explored. Designed to fill such an important void in the existing research literature, the present study, framed by socio-cultural theory, aims to explore the nature and role of supervisors’ written comments on doctoral research proposals. A primarily qualitative analysis of the drafts of three doctoral research proposals, the written comments in the drafts of these proposals, and interview data with three Phd applicants and two prospective PhD supervisors revealed that supervisors’ comments on doctoral research proposals were primarily feedback-oriented rather than assessment-focused. Such commentary practice played an important role in facilitating the initiation of the applicants into the academic community through scaffolding the academic writing process, building a quasi-supervisory relationship, as well as enhancing motivation and confidence. The paper concludes with the implications of the study, as well as suggestions for future research.
Keywords: Supervisors’ commentary Doctoral research proposals Feedback AssessmentBelcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1–22.
Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). The focus of supervisor written feedback to thesis/dissertation students. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 79–97.
Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39–52.
Calma, A. (2007). Postgraduate supervision in the Philippines: Setting the research agenda. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 16(1), 91–100.
Can, G., & Walker, A. (2011). A model for doctoral students’ perceptions and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Research in Higher Education, 52, 508–536.
Chiu, Y. H. (2011). Exploring non-native science scholars’ perspectives of writing for publication in English. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(3), 469–476.
Dong, Y. (1998). Non-native graduate students’ thesis/dissertation writing in science: Self-reports by students and their advisors from two US institutions. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 369–390.
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201.
Goldstein, L. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 63–80.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2006b). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461–470.
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2011). Examiners’ reports on theses: Feedback or assessment? Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 10(4), 211–222.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79–96.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (Eds.). (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69–85.
Leki, I. (2006). ‘You cannot ignore’: Graduate L2 students’ experience of and responses to written feedback practices within their disciplines. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 266–285). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Y. Y., & Flowerdew, J. (2007). Shaping Chinese novice scientists’ manuscripts for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 100–117.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2010). Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching and learning and student progress. Assessing Writing, 15(2), 68–85.
Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011). Feedback—focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879–896.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.
Tseng, M. Y. (2011). The genre of research grant proposals: Towards a cognitive–pragmatic analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2254–2268.
Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C. M. D. (2006). Socio-cultural theory: A framework for understanding the socio-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 23–42). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wang, T., & Li, L. Y. (2011). ‘Tell me what to do’ vs. ‘guide me through it’: Feedback experiences of international doctoral students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 101–112.
Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes: A clarification and application of Vygotsky’s theory. Human Development, 22, 1–22.
Yang, S. (2011). Exploring the effectiveness of using peer evaluation and teacher feedback in college students’ writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(1), 144–150.